It's not ok for someone to set up a fire trap that will burn others down, nor is it ok to live in a construction site.
The laws are set up to protect your neighbours from your wilful danger.

I brought a new 3 bedroom unit back in the mid 1990's. I doubt whether to this day I have made any money out of it despite it being negative geared. The first tennant was a single mum who somehow allowed her 2 year old to draw all over the walls, spill paint etc. Brand new unit trashed (albeit not to badly) within a year. With no incentive for investors and a chronic lack of Government housing I smell a diaster. The law is already in strong favour for druggies, bad tennants and rent defaulters. Low income earners will be the losers with a lack of housing. Mr Rudd/Turnbull best time in history to be alive seems totally paralysed. He seems incapable of making a decision except to backstab his elected leader.

Negative gearing is increasing the price cheap homes so young couples are forced to rent.
The baby boomers used to save a deposit of $1,000 within one year.
Then purchase a home for $10,000.This home today is valued at $600,000.
Baby boomers invented negative gearing so they could buy another home reduce tax and get a poor young couple to pay it off.
The baby boomers reduce the top rate of tax on their income and the taxation Department miss out on this tax.
Negative gearing has allowed these baby boomers and their wealthy kids
to accumulate numerous properties.
Lucky parents can gift to their children a fully paid home.Then these lucky kids start another negative gearing cycle.
I visited an outer Melbourne display home centre and found most of the advertising was directed to negative gearing.
Young couples are unable to save a deposit large enough to purchase
a home today and face a life time of renting.
As for low income people on negative gearing their investment property.Show me who they are,possibly small shop owners who understate their income.
Negative gearing must end now.
Australia used to be the country of the fair go.........not today.

'Then purchase a home for $10,000.This home today is valued at $600,000.'

BROCK you really seem to have a victim/entitlement mentality. Move to most Regions and you can get a home for 200-300 thousand. I am a baby boomer and the cheapest home i was ever able to buy was around 80000 in the 1980's. Wages were much lower then and wives generally took up the responsibilty of looking after their children instead of expecting the tax payer to fork out for childcare. Seems to me you are happy to be the perpetual victim. My son at 25 has worked hard and owns his own home. My daughter the same. The biggest crime of the baby boomers was to bring up spoilt brats who think they are entitled to everything and are hard done by. Try starting with a small unit or a caravan and do something called saving. A little sacrifice seems like a filthy word to the 'entitlement'generation who envy others who have worked hard to enjoy the benefits. Went on a cruise for the first time at 53 only to be surrounded by all these hard up 20-30 year olds.

Mr Opinion, as a sociologist does not believe this is part of left social warfare. He is obviously a lefty, & is one of the reasons we don't believe sociology is a real science.

If you set up, or buy any business, a retail shop, a service station, or a manufacturing industry, the interest on your borrowings to run the business are all tax deductible. What the hell is so different about borrowing for the business of housing rental, that it should be treated any differently? It is so obviously a "get them rich bastards we have to pay rent too", that any other interpretation is ridiculous.

I can't understand anyone being in housing rental. The returns are so miserable, & the risks so high, it is just not worth it. Take the tax deductibility of borrowings away, & rents will have to double to make any sense of doing it. If you want to own rental property, at least have enough to own commercial property. Commercial tenants have a vested interest in keeping it looking nice.

As for those with multiple properties. Negative gearing only works, if you are reducing your tax payments on other profitable business, or on PAYE tax on wages. Most people run out of any advantage fairly quickly with 2 or 3 properties. Anyone with a tax bill to gain from negative gearing of even a few properties, will have many more lucrative areas to invest their obviously larger sums of money.

Time to grow up, & stop the envy folks.

Dear Brock,

It is not right to accuse all baby-boomers of using negative gearing: at least some of them do have a conscience and a back-bone and wouldn't agree to be in debt, living off what is not theirs, even if it happens to be profitable due to tax loopholes. So much for contempt of old people - you will also be old one day!

Dear Hasbeen,

<<If you set up, or buy any business, a retail shop, a service station, or a manufacturing industry, the interest on your borrowings to run the business are all tax deductible.>>

Yes and this is exactly what is wrong with negative gearing. One should not be rewarded for living beyond their means.